Chick-Fil-A and Gay Marriage

[qwertyy]

[i ask people in advance to please keep religious or political debates outside this forum - there are plenty of them going on elsewhere (which is why I even mention it). I enjoy reading them, and respect people for having different viewpoints - just not here because that's really out of our purlieu, and more importantly, the "spirit of comradery" - which binds us all - that I wish to maintain on this website. You know, I've just always loved the fact that people here break bread together, regardless of their personal beliefs. That means so much to me. Thanks!]

Huh.

I want to respect Don's request to keep this non-political, so I'll so governmental. I wonder what folks think about Boston banning the franchise. Individual or citizen-organized boycotts are one thing, but I am chagrined and uncomfortable with a city government punishing a business due to the owner's frankly legal beliefs and actions, no matter what they are.

[Then again, it may not be possible to keep this non-political. Mods, make your call.]

[The Hersch]

I wonder what folks think about Boston banning the franchise. Individual or citizen-organized boycotts are one thing, but I am chagrined and uncomfortable with a city government punishing a business due to the owner's frankly legal beliefs and actions, no matter what they are.

I'm of two minds about this. With your way of framing it, I'm inclined to agree. But on the other hand, a community expressing its will through its democratic political institutions to favor or disfavor some commercial arrangement can't be illegitimate, can it, even if possibly unwise? I find the banning of foie gras by the state of California to be monumentally stupid, but not an affront to the rule of law.

Is there an essential difference between CFA being banned in Boston or banned at Northeastern University?

[DonRocks]

Huh.

I want to respect Don's request to keep this non-political, so I'll so governmental. I wonder what folks think about Boston banning the franchise. Individual or citizen-organized boycotts are one thing, but I am chagrined and uncomfortable with a city government punishing a business due to the owner's frankly legal beliefs and actions, no matter what they are.

[Then again, it may not be possible to keep this non-political. Mods, make your call.]

[it's fine, and I don't think there's a good way to avoid it even though I fear I'm opening Pandora's box. If this becomes a shouting match, please allow me the latitude to reconsider. The political issues surrounding Chick-Fil-A are so overwhelmingly prominent that they should probably have their own thread in the News and Media forum - that might be a good way to handle any discussion, and it keeps the Restaurants and Dining forum independent of politics and religion.]

Does anyone see any irony in this statement?

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

[DonRocks]

I am a huge Chick-fil-A fan, stopping almost every time I come across one - however, recently while on a road trip on a Sunday, Chick-fil-A was not an option so I ventured to Popeyes to compare their chicken sandwich for the first time - dizamn, that's a good spicy chicken sandwich. I highly recommend. Juicy, spicy, big hunk of chicken breast and cajun mayo. Good road eats. But, no pickles - will have to request for next time, if they have them. With the side biscuit, this sandwich might one-up Chick-fil-A's. But I'll still be a devotee.

Sure 'bout that?

[Waitman]

I'm of two minds about this. With your way of framing it, I'm inclined to agree. But on the other hand, a community expressing its will through its democratic political institutions to favor or disfavor some commercial arrangement can't be illegitimate, can it, even if possibly unwise? I find the banning of foie gras by the state of California to be monumentally stupid, but not an affront to the rule of law.

Is there an essential difference between CFA being banned in Boston or banned at Northeastern University?

Foodstuffs are legitimately banned for a number of reasons, one of them being that producing them is inherently cruel. We can argue about whether foie gras production is "cruel." But, if the legislature or other appropriate body determines that it is indeed cruel, then the product can be banned. The smaller point is debatable, the large point -- that we will not reward people for torturing animals -- is not.

On the other hand, official reprisals against individuals or corporations by government agents or agencies because their owners, shareholders, corporate spokespeople or employees hold different beliefs than those officially sanctioned by said government is loathsome and utterly illegitimate. If CFA violates civil rights laws within the city of Boston, the Mayor is free to direct the city to take appropriate action. If the people -- even the Mayor -- wish to lead a boycott, fine. If the Mayor attempts to use the power of his office to manipulate the legal system in order to enforce a politically popular view of the world, he should be impeached. The smaller point -- whether CFA can be banned -- is irrelevant because the larger point -- can one use the power of office to curtail speech -- is prima facie absurd.

Turn this around -- imagine some Mayor tried to ban (choosing at random) Pete's Apizza from expanding into their town, because the owners had an Obama bumper sticker on the car and had given money to the Human Rights Campaign Fund. The outrage would be overwhelming.

[The Hersch]

Governments discriminate all the time among businesses and business practices based on perceived public good or public harm. A city government might, for example, allow a company to build an office tower, but only on condition it also builds affordable housing as part of the project. Luxury condos, but only if it builds a public school at no cost to the public, or only on condition that it improve services and living conditions in slum properties it owns. Would it be illegitimate for a government to grant a building permit or a zoning variance, but only on the condition that the company endow a chair at the city university in Public Management? How about that it endow a chair in Holocaust Denial Advocacy? No? How about only on condition that the company cease its holocaust denial activities? The pro-denial and anti-denial requirements are exactly symmetrical. Is one okay and the other not? Both okay? Neither okay?

Any business that operates in the city of Boston does so upon the sufferance of the people of the city, as expressed through their democratic political institutions. If the people decide that a given business is pursuing ends that are inimical to the interests of the people, in this case the rights, dignity, and well-being of Boston's gay citizens and their friends and families, it seems to me they have a perfect right to deny that sufferance until the business modifies its behavior, and I find myself puzzled that this is controversial.

[johnb]

On the other hand, official reprisals against individuals or corporations by government agents or agencies because their owners, shareholders, corporate spokespeople or employees hold different beliefs than those officially sanctioned by said government is loathsome and utterly illegitimate. If CFA violates civil rights laws within the city of Boston, the Mayor is free to direct the city to take appropriate action. If the people -- even the Mayor -- wish to lead a boycott, fine. If the Mayor attempts to use the power of his office to manipulate the legal system in order to enforce a politically popular view of the world, he should be impeached. The smaller point -- whether CFA can be banned -- is irrelevant because the larger point -- can one use the power of office to curtail speech -- is prima facie absurd.

Not so fast. Yes, simply holding a belief should never be a problem under our constitution. But if that organization acts on a belief, and such action is contrary to social principles that have come to be accepted as ruling principles, even locally, then that is another matter. You can for example believe in your heart of hearts that members of certain groups are inferior, but that doesn't mean you can refuse to hire them or serve them. I don't know whether CFA has actually legally discriminated against gays or anyone else in its hiring practices (I'd be amazed if it hasn't, but legal proof is another question). But I think that Boston may have a right to question whether they should be welcomed, based on their profession of their viewpoint, which may not be viewed as inimical in their home territory but may be in Boston. At the least, given their very public anti-gay philosophy, I think the City would be justified, as a condition of approval, in requiring them to publicly resolve not to discriminate against anyone in their hiring or service.

Expanding a bit on the above, it would then be truly wonderful if the local gay groups would get organized and make sure that many/most of the applicants for employment at the new store were gay, the more obviously so the better. Think about how the suits in the head office back in Atlanta would feel about the "drag queen" CFA location in Boston! That would serve them right.

Turn this around -- imagine some Mayor tried to ban (choosing at random) Pete's Apizza from expanding into their town, because the owners had an Obama bumper sticker on the car and had given money to the Human Rights Campaign Fund. The outrage would be overwhelming.

IMO, not a good analogy. It equates giving money to organizations that promote acceptance of stated and agreed basic national principles (equality of all) with organizations that work against the acceptance of those principles.

[Waitman]

Governments discriminate all the time among businesses and business practices based on perceived public good or public harm. A city government might, for example, allow a company to build an office tower, but only on condition it also builds affordable housing as part of the project. Luxury condos, but only if it builds a public school at no cost to the public, or only on condition that it improve services and living conditions in slum properties it owns. Would it be illegitimate for a government to grant a building permit or a zoning variance, but only on the condition that the company endow a chair at the city university in Public Management? How about that it endow a chair in Holocaust Denial Advocacy? No? How about only on condition that the company cease its holocaust denial activities? The pro-denial and anti-denial requirements are exactly symmetrical. Is one okay and the other not? Both okay? Neither okay?

The Constitution guarantees the right to free expression. Sanctioning an individual or an enterprise, by a government entity (as individuals, we are free to whatever doesn't break the law) for exercising that right is simply unconstitutional, a violation of the fundamental ideals of the nation and explicitly fascist. See Orewell and the thought police.

Any business that operates in the city of Boston does so upon the sufferance of the people of the city, as expressed through their democratic political institutions. If the people decide that a given business is pursuing ends that are inimical to the interests of the people, in this case the rights, dignity, and well-being of Boston's gay citizens and their friends and families, it seems to me they have a perfect right to deny that sufferance until the business modifies its behavior, and I find myself puzzled that this is controversial.

So, if the city decides not to suffer black- Muslim- and Republican-owned businesses in the city, it can ban them? Remember, once you establish the principle that businesses have to pass some sort of ideological purity test to get a c of o, that tactic can be used against business you support, too. Your arguments are why people despise certain strains of liberalism.

Not so fast. Yes, simply holding a belief should never be a problem under our constitution. But if that organization acts on a belief, and such action is contrary to social principles that have come to be accepted as ruling principles, even locally, then that is another matter. You can for example believe in your heart of hearts that members of certain groups are inferior, but that doesn't mean you can refuse to hire them or serve them. I don't know whether CFA has actually legally discriminated against gays or anyone else in its hiring practices (I'd be amazed if it hasn't, but legal proof is another question). But I think that Boston may have a right to question whether they should be welcomed, based on their profession of their viewpoint, which may not be viewed as inimical in their home territory but may be in Boston. At the least, given their very public anti-gay philosophy, I think the City would be justified, as a condition of approval, in requiring them to publicly resolve not to discriminate against anyone in their hiring or service.

Right, as I said, soon as you have some proof that CFA is violating a law, you can act against them. Until then, penalizing them for their beliefs is absolutley fascist. And, speaking as someone who just cut a check for the fight against the anti-ssm ballot initiative in Maryland, and who has done work fro the ACLU, I would rather spend my money in an establishment that owned by someone who opposes same sex marriage, than in an establishment owned by someone who believes the power of the state should be used to close the former establishment down. The first owner is a bigot. The second own is a fascist.

Expanding a bit on the above, it would then be truly wonderful if the local gay groups would get organized and make sure that many/most of the applicants for employment at the new store were gay, the more obviously so the better. Think about how the suits in the head office back in Atlanta would feel about the "drag queen" CFA location in Boston! That would serve them right.

Perfectly legitimate, and you might get get an actionable case out of it. But until then, Mayor Menino needs to shut the hell up and get potholes fixed.

[The Hersch]

The Constitution guarantees the right to free expression. Sanctioning an individual or an enterprise, by a government entity (as individuals, we are free to whatever doesn't break the law) for exercising that right is simply unconstitutional, a violation of the fundamental ideals of the nation and explicitly fascist.

But the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to a business license or certificate of occupancy. As I say, governments put conditions on these things all the time, based upon the public good. A company or its representatives can advocate all it wants for discrimination against gay people, but since that discrimination is judged to be contrary to the public good (and illegal in Massachusetts) one consequence of that advocacy may be that the city or the Commonwealth withholds the granting of a privilege, not a right, to operate a business within its borders.

So, if the city decides not to suffer black- Muslim- and Republican-owned businesses in the city, it can ban them? Remember, once you establish the principle that businesses have to pass some sort of ideological purity test to get a c of o, that tactic can be used against business you support, too. Your arguments are why people despise certain strains of liberalism.

And yours remind me of how tiresome I find most types of absolutism. A business actively working against the common weal is not the same thing as a business owned by people one disagrees with.

[Waitman]

But the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to a business license or certificate of occupancy. As I say, governments put conditions on these things all the time, based upon the public good. A company or its representatives can advocate all it wants for discrimination against gay people, but since that discrimination is judged to be contrary to the public good (and illegal in Massachusetts) one consequence of that advocacy may be that the city or the Commonwealth withholds the granting of a privilege, not a right, to operate a business within its borders.

The Constitution forbid the government from penalizing you for your speech. If the government denies you the opportunity to run a business purely on the basis of the opinions you express or the political movements you support, it has acted in an unconstitutional manner. This is not hard.

And yours remind me of how tiresome I find most types of absolutism. A business actively working against the common weal is not the same thing as a business owned by people one disagrees with.

And any mayor with a constituency to suck up to gets to define what "working against the common weal" is? Maybe, in addition to denying a business the right earn a living, they should just arrest the the little subversive and throw him in the slammer. That's what the Freedom Trail is all about, right? You tell us what we want to hear, or we'll hurt you as much as we can.

Are you getting the difference between you or I acting here, and the government acting? And, if I as the mayor of Large Sunbelt City decided -- along with the majority of my Red State Constituents -- that anyone who active opposed concealed carry laws and fought to restrict the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms should be denied the right to open a business, are you OK with that?

[Ericandblueboy]

I sucked at Constitutional law but I vaguely remember that it generally applies against the government from interfering with the rights of the people. The government may regulate or curtail those rights when there is important public policy at stake. Freedom of speech is one those of rights that the government generally cannot regulate - that's what Waitman is saying. The Hersch is saying the government should have a right to regulate hate speech because it's against public policy. Precedent says that government generally cannot regulate hate speech, as the KKK has the right to march and assemble, much like anyone else. For that reason, I don't think the mayor of Boston can refuse Chick-fil-A from opening in the city.

[johnb]

The Constitution forbid the government from penalizing you for your speech. If the government denies you the opportunity to run a business purely on the basis of the opinions you express or the political movements you support, it has acted in an unconstitutional manner. This is not hard.

And any mayor with a constituency to suck up to gets to define what "working against the common weal" is? Maybe, in addition to denying a business the right earn a living, they should just arrest the the little subversive and throw him in the slammer. That's what the Freedom Trail is all about, right? You tell us what we want to hear, or we'll hurt you as much as we can.

Are you getting the difference between you or I acting here, and the government acting? And, if I as the mayor of Large Sunbelt City decided -- along with the majority of my Red State Constituents -- that anyone who active opposed concealed carry laws and fought to restrict the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms should be denied the right to open a business, are you OK with that?

It is true that under the constitution nobody can be discriminated against in issuing a business license based purely on the personal opinions of the persons who own/run the company (speech).

That said, the facts in this case are not so simple as you seem to assume. (1) Chick-fil-A has for many years contributed significant sums to numerous organization who are not just anti-gay marriage but are anti-gay period. (2) CFA's primary and historic geographical area of operation is in states where hiring discrimination against gays is legal; its headquarters, and its top executives, are located in/from areas that are not gay friendly. Based on available public information, any reasonable person may conclude that its corporate culture is very gay-unfriendly. (3) Massachusetts, on the other hand, has strong laws against discrimination against gays.

Given these facts, it is wholly constitutional, legal, and appropriate for the government of the City of Boston to intensively review whether the company will comply, in every way and on every level, with the letter of their state and local laws in regard to discrimination against gays. Such a review can certainly be part of the process of license review, and IMO it would not be unjustified to deny a license in the face of anything less than a strong showing of intent to comply, with safeguards for future review of actual compliance.

[The Hersch]

The Constitution forbid the government from penalizing you for your speech. If the government denies you the opportunity to run a business purely on the basis of the opinions you express or the political movements you support, it has acted in an unconstitutional manner.

I find this, frankly, an utterly ridiculous 1st-Amendment argument, which I doubt would find much support in the courts. The Constitution forbids the government to prevent you from speaking freely, or to throw you in prison for most things you've said, although even there it can throw you in prison for speech that constitutes criminal conspiracy or fraud or incitement to crime or breach of the peace. The Constitution does not require the government to shower rewards upon you despite your promotion of causes detrimental to the public good.

And any mayor with a constituency to suck up to gets to define what "working against the common weal" is?

Your belief that I am a liberal and a fascist notwithstanding (and I hope you and the Doughy Pantload will be happy together), I'm actually neither. I think the community has a right to a consensus view of what the common weal is, and the (unfortunately) best approximation of that consensus that we have is the public will expressed through democratic political institutions. You may call that "liberal" or "fascist" if you like.

[The Hersch]

The Hersch is saying the government should have a right to regulate hate speech because it's against public policy.

I am most emphatically not saying that. I don't think the city of Boston has a right to regulate any speech at all. But it also has no duty to bestow its blessings indifferently on friend and foe of the public interest alike.

The KKK has every right to march and assemble. It doesn't have a right to open a restaurant.

[Ericandblueboy]

I am most emphatically not saying that. I don't think the city of Boston has a right to regulate any speech at all. But it also has no duty to bestow its blessings indifferently on friend and foe of the public interest alike.

The KKK has every right to march and assemble. It doesn't have a right to open a restaurant.

The KKK has every right to open a restaurant. If a city forbids KKK from opening a restaurant, then that city is in effect regulating KKK's beliefs, because that's the only thing that sets KKK apart from any other potential business owner. By allowing KKK to open a restaurant, a city's not bestowing its blessings. It's just not discriminatory in granting a business license. While I don't know what made Waitman blow his top, but his point is entirely correct. A city not granting a business license is no different than a city not granting a marching/assembling license - neither are authorized by the constitution unless there's a threat of imminent harm.

[The Hersch]

A city not granting a business license is no different than a city not granting a marching/assembling license

A city not granting a business license is utterly different from a city not granting a marching/assembling license. I'd be interested to learn in what clause of the constitution the right to operate a restaurant is enshrined. I can cite the 1st Amendment for the assembling thing. What can you cite for the restaurant thing?

You may believe with all your heart that the city of Boston or any other government or community has a duty to nourish a viper in its bosom, but please don't ask me to join in your grotesque fantasy.

[Ericandblueboy]

By your logic, Republicans can't own a business in Boston.

[The Hersch]

Look, I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the ACLU. Back in 1977, a group of American Nazis wanted to hold a march through Skokie, Illinois, a majority-Jewish community. The town would not allow it, and the ACLU brought a successful suit on behalf of the Nazis. I supported the ACLU in that action then, and I still agree that the ACLU and the Nazis were in the right. But neither the ACLU nor I thought that Skokie had a duty to award the Nazis any city contracts. Sheesh, this doesn't seem very complicated.

[Ericandblueboy]

Sheesh, this doesn't seem very complicated.

No need to get condescending. So far you've cited nothing but your firm belief that the government can discriminate against a citizen's beliefs. In effect, you think the government can discriminate against certain religions, such as Christianity.

[Escoffier]

Actually, as long as the separation of church and state holds (which is getting a bit tenuous with all the caterwauling coming from certain segments of the populace), the government can discriminate against either all on none of the existing religions. Quite frankly, I'd be just as happy if religion and government stay way far apart. (Not to goad the religious, but I may not believe the same things they do and I don't want anyone trying to convince me their particular superstition is better than my own personal superstition).

(BTW, what business is it of CfA or anyone else what a person does in the privacy of their own home? Unless you're scaring the horses publicly, it's not my business or your business or the government's business).

[dcandohio]

This has been an interesting conversation. As a gay person I won't ever spend money at CFA, and I am not a legal scholar so I can't argue the merits of the Boston decision adequately. But in my opinion, there's a difference between disallowing a business to exist because of its actions (such as discriminating against certain people for employment) and disallowing it because of the opinions of its leaders. Actions are, well, actionable. Opinions? Slippery slope, for me. I am sure that I buy things every day from businesses whose leaders are so ideologically different from me that I would stop buying if I knew. When I do know, I do stop buying. But you don't always know, because not all business leaders share their personal values on social issues with their stakeholders. However, it's getting easier and easier to track donations, so people don't have to actually voice their views...you just have to follow the money.

If the CFA leaders allow their personal views to seep in to the daily operations of their restaurants, though, it's only a matter of time before some self-righteous server refuses to sell a chicken sandwich to a same-sex couple holding hands in the restaurant, especially (one hopes!) in a state where gay marriage is legal, citing "the company's" oposition to gay marriage. At that point, when the leadership's viewpoints become the justification for discrimination, it will be interesting to see how the personal views of the leaders affect the success of the lawsuits that are sure to occur.

[qwertyy]

[i'm not one to start a political debate then step out, but I really have nothing to add to these posts, and I'm pretty much torn down the middle. Thanks for the interesting discussion!]

[The Hersch]

So far you've cited nothing but your firm belief that the government can discriminate against a citizen's beliefs. In effect, you think the government can discriminate against certain religions, such as Christianity.

Your statement here bears no discernible relation to anything I've said. Discriminate against a citizen's beliefs? I'm not even sure what that means, but it's nothing I subscribe to. Religions? Where did I ever say anything about religions? Free associating may have its uses, but it's rather out of place in rational discussion.

[Waitman]

Your statement here bears no discernible relation to anything I've said. Discriminate against a citizen's beliefs? I'm not even sure what that means, but it's nothing I subscribe to.

You have said repeatedly that if a person believes that gay marriage is immoral, you can deny him the right to do business in the city of Boston.

How do you define discrimination? Singling them out and depriving them of the opportunity to do business seems pretty discriminatory to me.

[Ericandblueboy]

Your statement here bears no discernible relation to anything I've said. Discriminate against a citizen's beliefs? I'm not even sure what that means, but it's nothing I subscribe to. Religions? Where did I ever say anything about religions? Free associating may have its uses, but it's rather out of place in rational discussion.

Chick fil a's position is based on their religious belief. Did I connect the dots for you? Are you seriously implying I wasn't being rational?

[The Hersch]

You have said repeatedly that if a person believes that gay marriage is immoral, you can deny him the right to do business in the city of Boston.

I have not said anything remotely like that. I haven't said anything about personal beliefs at all. If one has an honest, good-faith argument to make, one doesn't need to mischaracterize the arguments of others in order to make it. I see no point in continuing a conversation along these lines. Feel free to have the last word.

[DonRocks]

I have not said anything remotely like that. I haven't said anything about personal beliefs at all. If one has an honest, good-faith argument to make, one doesn't need to mischaracterize the arguments of others in order to make it. I see no point in continuing a conversation along these lines. Feel free to have the last word.

(I'm not moderating; just commenting ...)

Honestly, I think that Waitman and Ericandblueboy are winning this argument based solely on content and presentation (not "right vs. wrong"). You imply that they're mischaracterizing what you're saying, but to my eyes, they're correct in seeking clarification.

You say, "Sheesh, this doesn't seem very complicated," and I don't think it does either, but this implies to me that you've got a rock-solid argument in your own mind that just isn't showing up in the written word. If I'm uncertain about what your argument is at this point, I suspect others are too - maybe you can try to re-explain your position?

[dcandohio]

It was only a matter of time...

http://eater.com/archives/2012/07/23/national-same-sex-kiss-day-planned-to-protest-chick-fil-as-anti-gay-stance.php

[Tujague]

It was only a matter of time...

http://eater.com/arc...-gay-stance.php

The Onion, as always, one-ups this...

[qwertyy]

The Atlantic: In Defense of Eating at Chick-Fil-A

[saf]

The Atlantic

I read it.

I don't refuse to eat there because I disagree with them, as the author maintains. I refuse to eat there because they donate to groups that work for things I find wrong. Not incorrect, wrong. I believe he mischaracterizes the motivation behind the boycott.

[The Hersch]

Don has very kindly asked me to resume this conversation, and because I love him, in an abstract sort of sense, I can deny him nothing.

Let me just try to restate my position as clearly and as calmly as I can: I do not advocate the suppression of anyone's views. I do not think that any government should be able to regulate anyone's speech. I do not think that anyone should be punished for holding or expressing beliefs with which I do not agree. I believe absolutely in freedom of conscience. Moral or religious belief, no matter how much I might disagree with it or find it odious, is completely off limits to government intrusion, oversight, regulation, or censorship. None of that has anything to do with what I have been arguing.

When an institution or company actively campaigns against the human rights of citizens of Boston, however, Boston has no duty to grant that institution or company any privileges, and a license to do business in Boston is a privilege and not a right. I'm talking about behavior, not about belief. The folks who own Chick-fil-A can believe all they want that queers are wicked and that same-sex marriage is an abomination, and no government has any business interfering with them on that score. When they actively fund and engage in efforts to deny some people the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, however, they are not merely holding or expressing beliefs with which I disagree. They are seeking to deprive actual living, breathing, precious human beings of the rights to which they as well as their would-be oppressors are entitled. That's an entirely different thing from holding beliefs or moral convictions with which I disagree. That is an attempt to do violence to human beings whom we are morally obligated to love and cherish. That kind of advocacy can provoke no legitimate response of criminalization, but it also cannot compel the people against whom it is directed to grant privileges to the people who are committed to doing them harm.

I have a real problem with these fundy types doing their little tiptoe through the tulips of Leviticus, picking the flowers that reinforce their pre-existing bigotries and leaving the rest behind, and calling it religious conviction, but I will leave that aside. If they say their beliefs are based in religious conviction, I have no right to say they're not telling the truth. But I'm not quarreling with their convictions, I'm quarreling with their campaign to deprive my brothers and sisters of their human rights. The city of Boston, or any other community, has no duty to put out the welcome mat for commercial enterprises that have explicitly dedicated themselves to destroying the community's way of life. As others have remarked, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

[DonRocks]

[beautifully written.]

[RWBooneJr]

They are seeking to deprive actual living, breathing, precious human beings of the rights to which they as well as their would-be oppressors are entitled.

And if you spend any money at Chick-fil-A, you are funding this enterprise.

Personally, I think this discussion should be merged with the restaurant's thread. You cannot separate this chain's food from its bigotry because its profits support that bigotry.

[Waitman]

A compelling argument but one utterly divorced from Constitutional principles.

Moral or religious belief, no matter how much I might disagree with it or find it odious, is completely off limits to government intrusion, oversight, regulation, or censorship.

If a government imposes an economic penalty on you because of your stated beliefs, isn’t that intrusion, regulation, oversight and/or an obvious attempt at censorship?

When an institution or company actively campaigns against the human rights of citizens of Boston, however, Boston has no duty to grant that institution or company any privileges, and a license to do business in Boston is a privilege and not a right.

The city of Boston cannot arbitrarily impose different conditions for doing business in the city based on the Mayor’s personal opinions. Without getting all “Citizens United,” businesses have rights, as well. The right that Chick-fil-A has is the right to be treated exactly like McDonalds is. Unless the Boston City Code contains a clause requiring the adherence of a business’s executives and directors to a certain set of beliefs, it cannot suddenly decide that CFA is disallowed from doing business within the city limits. And, of course, if they did have such a clause, it would be flagrantly unconstitutional.

I'm talking about behavior, not about belief. The folks who own Chick-fil-A can believe all they want that queers are wicked and that same-sex marriage is an abomination, and no government has any business interfering with them on that score. When they actively fund and engage in efforts to deny some people the equal protection of the law.

You're not really making the argument that you can punish someone for doing something completely legal are you? Could Boston deny a company a certificate of of occupancy because they're owned by a Yankees fan who --horrors-- went to a Yankees game and bought a Yankees hat, thus giving the Yankees the money they need to hire a clutch closer to shut down the Sox?

But we already know the answer, as it relates to the question before us. Constitutionally (see Buckley v Valeo), spending money to support your beliefs is indistinguishable from constitutionally protected speech. That is, as they say, settled law. More important, however, it is common sense. Granting someone the right to hold an opinion without the right to actively support and promote that opinion would be absurd. You can support Obama, but you’ll be denied the right to do business if you cut a check to his campaign. You can be pro-gun, but if you join the NRA you’ll be fired. You can be pro-choice, but if you march in the pro-choice rally we’re going to deny your bar a liquor license. See? If you can’t support your opinion as through absolutley legal actions, you don’t really have a right to it, do you?

When they actively fund and engage in efforts to deny some people the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, however, they are not merely holding or expressing beliefs with which I disagree.

There is, as yet, no controlling Supreme Court opinion that same sex marriage is guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment. Even if there were, it wouldn’t allow you to discriminate against those who disagree. The right to an abortion actually has a Supreme Court decision behind it, but you can’t go around preventing the pro-life people from opening businesses and getting jobs, can you? Aside from that, see the argument above. You can’t differentiate the right to hold an opinion from the right to publicly advocate it and even to work to have it codified into law.

That's an entirely different thing from holding beliefs or moral convictions with which I disagree.

Legally, it’s not.

That kind of advocacy can provoke no legitimate response of criminalization, but it also cannot compel the people against whom it is directed to grant privileges to the people who are committed to doing them harm.

While I may agree with you regarding ssm, another way to put it is that the Chik fil A team is engaged in perfectly legal and constitutionally protected speech, and that no government entity is empowered to punish them for doing so.

But I'm not quarreling with their convictions, I'm quarreling with their campaign to deprive my brothers and sisters of their human rights.

You’re quarreling with them for holding religious and political views different from your own -- their convictions. As an individual, you are free to act. But, as passionately as you believe you are correct, your views of their actions are, Constitutionally, no more valid than their view of their actions – that they are fighting a moral and necessary battle to strengthen our nation. While you have no duty to act as a neutral judge, the law absolutely does.

The city of Boston, or any other community, has no duty to put out the welcome mat for commercial enterprises that have explicitly dedicated themselves to destroying the community's way of life. As others have remarked, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

Until CFA is found guilty of some statutory or constitutional transgression, the regulatory arm of The City of Boston (upper-case “c”) has an absolute duty to treat CFA exactly the same as they would treat a similar enterprise which happened to donate its profits to the Human Rights Campaign Fund.

Also, proving that allowing a CFA into the neighborhood is tantamount to inviting cultural suicide would, I believe, be a difficult case to make.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about your essay is it ignores the idea that, once a principle like this is established, it becomes applicable in an infinite variety of circumstances. Suppose our hypothetical HRC –donating fast food establishment attempted to open a franchise in a very conservative community, where same sex marriage is viewed as capable of “destroying the community's way of life?” Your argument works just as well for them.

And, before you start, please don’t argue that you are “right” and they are “wrong” because that is legally pointless and ontologically (I’m sure I used that word wrong, but…) troubling.

Do you see the problem here? Your argument is based on the absolute infallibility of not just one politically motivated elected official but every elected official with a bailiwick and a bureaucracy to manipulate. The fundamental principle underlying the freedom of speech is that governments and individuals are not only not capable of discerning “truth,” they’re often not particularly interested in it. Therefore, the state supports virtually unlimited speech in the idea that we will, over time and through debate and experience, muddle close to what the truth actually is. You can’t simply assert – as you do – that you are correct. That doesn't cut it once you get around to actually using the law to punish those who disagree with you.

And it gets worse, of course. Once you start denying business licenses for opposing gay marriage, what other thoughtcrimes (yeah, I went there, couldn’t help myself) will you penalize? Failure to support the Violence Against Women Act? Fighting against the constitutionally guaranteed right of large businesses to make anonymous contributions to partisan super PACs? Failing to display the flag on July 4^th? Having a brother who contributed to the Romney campaign? Being a Muslim? What is the threshold? Or is this something only you and Mayor Menino, in your combined wisdom, can determine?

So, to recap:

1) Treating people and/or businesses differently because of their speech or beliefs is discrimination.

2) Speech and actions in support of a stated opinion are the same thing: legally, constitutionally, morally and practically. You cannot be pro-free speech and anti-contribution/activism.

3) Governments are forbidden from discriminating on the basis of belief or speech.

4) The City of Boston cannot discriminate against CFA based on the beliefs it espouses.

Corollaries:

We should not be in the business of applauding governments who violate constitutional liberties to score political points, regardless of how much we may agree with the impulse behind it (assuming it’s not just craven political grandstanding). That way lies fascism. I mean really, not just flinging that word around. Imagine if the Tea Party got their hands on the reins of power and applied your logic.

As convinced as we all are that we know what is true, just and the American Way, the law is necessarily skeptical and must remain so. Given the power to govern arbitrarily based on subjective ideas of the truth, people who do not agree with us will cudgel us with the power we gave them.

Assertion is not proof.

And the slippery slope and all that.

Thanks for listening. You may now return to your regularly scheduled boycott.

[MC Horoscope]

Is Boston a fiefdom or something? You may open a business at the pleasure of the mayor? There are laws. Dangerous direction he's taking.

[porcupine]

I have a real problem with these fundy types doing their little tiptoe through the tulips of Leviticus, picking the flowers that reinforce their pre-existing bigotries and leaving the rest behind, and calling it religious conviction

[thank God I'm not the only one]

More gems from Leviticus:

You shall not allow two different kinds of beast to mate together.

You shall not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

You shall not put on a garment woven with two kinds of yarn.

You shall not round off your hair from side to side, and you shall not shave the edge of your beards.

When an alien settles with you in your land, you shall not oppress him.

And then there's all the fun stuff about slavery in Exodus, like:

When a man sells his daughter into slavery, she may not go free as a male slave may.

Word of God. Amen.

[DonRocks]

You shall not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

Leviticus never had a 61 Latour.

---

Here is the official letter from the mayor to Chick-Fil-A (worth reading if you're interested in this topic).

---

[i'd like to add that here on donrockwell.com, we do not recognize group accounts of any kind. One member name, one individual - anything more than that is outside the purview of this website. To anyone who thinks this rule was instituted because I'm a power-happy tool: the one couple who fought me for years about this ... split up.]

[B.A.R.]

I just want to say that I appreciate this discourse and I will miss those chicken sandwiches.

[JuneBacon]

Has it been touched upon that people are only aware of Chick-fil-A's stance because of their public outcries? Look at how much free publicity they are getting. Everyone that you speak to can relate gay marriage and Chick-fil-A.

There are a lot more people out there that couldn't give two shits about a corporation's stance when their stomachs are grumbling on the highway. With all this free publicity, I can't see this hurting more than it is helping. But that's just like my opinion, man.

I bring this up because I regularly frequent corporations whose stance on this topic I am unaware of. What if Target, Amazon, Ebay, Google, Yahoo etc. had the same stance, but you didn't know it?

Shouldn't it be your moral perogative to find this out before logging into your Gmail account next time? If you are to boycott one company, why not boycott them all?

(Edit: Maybe I didn't pick good examples, with Dot Com boomers being very progressive compnaies and all, yes, I am sure you would be right to doubt that Google has a problem with same-sex marriage.)

[DonRocks]

Olympian ousted for Twitter comments. <--- Related, or not?

I also want to say how much I appreciate this discussion. Conversations like this are worth investing some effort in - ten mindless Tweets will essentially get lost forever within a day (think about that the next time you update your status with "I'm about to go brush my teeth!"); this discourse will remain as something worthwhile, and will be read thoughtfully in the future.

[sheldman]

The discussion has been fascinating, but (like so many discussions of legal issues, whether by lawyers or non-lawyers) the Mayor's letter as linked by Don above is a great reminder that the facts really have to come first, before you can decide who's right or wrong.

As a guy who "does" constitutional law a reasonable percentage of my worklife, and has therefore been indoctrinated into late 20th/early 21st century mainstream American constitutional law, it seems pretty obvious to me (as a rough general principle) that a city can't refuse to allow business permits to (or otherwise ban) a business if that refusal or ban is motivated by the business's or owner's speech on hotly debated political or social issues. First Amendment, "unconstitutional conditions" law.

But the Mayor's letter doesn't look like that sort of unconstitutional action, to me - it looks like "screw you, we don't want you here," which (I would happily argue if I were his lawyer) is just lawful government speech rather than adverse government action. Also it might (might might) make a difference that the location they're talking about is of particular historical importance to the City as a birthplace of freedom and equality - that might (might might) give the City more leeway to say who gets to have a business there, than a general city-wide ban on Chik-Fil-A.

[Tujague]

Here is the official letter from the mayor to Chick-Fil-A (worth reading if you're interested in this topic).

I agree with Sheldman, Menino is not really threatening to bar CFA on legal grounds; he is simply angrily expressing his sense of "inappropriateness" for their desire to enter the Boston market, particularly along the Freedom Trail. But, by cc-ing the property manager of the proposed site, he is putting them on notice that they should seek out other tenants, and that CFA should reconsider their move.

I bring this up because I regularly frequent corporations whose stance on this topic I am unaware of. What if Target, Amazon, Ebay, Google, Yahoo etc. had the same stance, but you didn't know it?

Actually, Target did come under fire awhile back for donating money to an anti-gay Republican candidate, because they preferred his economic/tax policy. Many did threaten a boycott, and they had to backtrack; the whole thing was odd and awkward, since Target (and before that, Dayton-Hudson) has long been pretty gay-friendly in its employment policies.

A better example might be Cracker Barrel, which was demonstrated to have exercised racial discrimination, both toward customers and in its employment practices, as I recall. There may not have been related political activity, but the business practices were clearly discriminatory. If CFA were found to engage in similar actions toward gay persons and same-sex couples, that would seem to be grounds to deny or at least heavily scrutinize their applications.

While I think that Waitman is correct on legal grounds, I want to raise a toast to The Hersch, not only for restating much more clearly and eloquently his thoughts, but for pushing those of us who are gay or gay-supportive to taking a more radical view toward the civil-rights nature of this issue. That is to say, when one ponders the implications of truly seeing this as not simply as friends and family being able to have a legal wedding, but as truly a matter of their deprivation of civil rights--human rights--to a class of citizens, and thus an issue of oppression, then it does take on deeper ethical implications that ask more of us than kind thoughts.

This past Sunday I went to a Equality Maryland fundraiser in New Market, targeting conservatives and libertarians (of which I am not one), and was impressed mightily not just by folks like state senator Allen Kittleman (R-Carroll/Howard Ctys) and delegate Wade Kach (R-Baltimore Cty) who put their seats on the line to support this in the Maryland Assembly, but also by their Democratic colleagues who showed up to offer financial support to the upcoming reelection campaigns for these two men. And I was interested to learn that Maryland has the largest multifaith clergy coalition backing the marriage law of any state in the country where this will be on the ballot this fall. Which is all to say that such deeper ethical engagement means we can't reduce this to simple religious or political commitments/allegiances, and may actually mean lending support to those with whom you don't necessarily agree on other issues.

And then there's this:

[jayandstacey]

But the Mayor's letter doesn't look like that sort of unconstitutional action, to me - it looks like "screw you, we don't want you here," which (I would happily argue if I were his lawyer) is just lawful government speech rather than adverse government action. Also it might (might might) make a difference that the location they're talking about is of particular historical importance to the City as a birthplace of freedom and equality - that might (might might) give the City more leeway to say who gets to have a business there, than a general city-wide ban on Chik-Fil-A.

So the battle is drawn with words in the press before any actual actions happen - I kind of like the mayor's approach - and the court of public opinion will ultimately win I suppose. Basically he's making it uncomfortable for them to even request the license in the first place....so it is possible the city never has to address the issue of refusing it.

And while I agree that the mayor's doing a dangerous thing and using somewhat strongarm tactics, I'd also say that

A ) speech continues to be free, and the Mayor's just talking. and

B ) the mayor is elected by voters and chik-fil-a survives at the whim of their customers. Maybe one survives, maybe both, maybe neither. But neither has a lock on their pulpit.

I used to respect chik-fil-a's honoring their religion by closing on Sunday. And I used to think "eat mor chikin" was cute. Now I see it for the cows telling me how to treat (and defeat) others to their benefit.

[jayandstacey]

And it gets worse, of course. Once you start denying business licenses for opposing gay marriage, what other thoughtcrimes (yeah, I went there, couldn’t help myself) will you penalize? Failure to support the Violence Against Women Act? Fighting against the constitutionally guaranteed right of large businesses to make anonymous contributions to partisan super PACs? Failing to display the flag on July 4^th? Having a brother who contributed to the Romney campaign? Being a Muslim? What is the threshold? Or is this something only you and Mayor Menino, in your combined wisdom, can determine?

Every jurisdiction denies business licenses to those who don't have the money to pay for the license. Since when is not having money a reason to penalize someone or their business?

[DonRocks]

Every jurisdiction denies business licenses to those who don't have the money to pay for the license. Since when is not having money a reason to penalize someone or their business?

[No!]

[jayandstacey]

Every jurisdiction denies business licenses to those who don't have the money to pay for the license. Since when is not having money a reason to penalize someone or their business?

Waitman, your arguments are sound and robust - but I believe philosophically you're making the law both too rigid and too... important. I believe, rather, that to some degree what happens in the US is pushed around by popular majority, and that on some level, this is on purpose and good.

So for instance, you take the path of 'where does it stop' for policies regarding issuance of a business license. I don't know Boston's ordinances or zoning laws, but I'd imagine that the extreme flip side of the coin is built into those regulations - that a gay-focused sex shop couldn't open there either despite the Mayor's position on equal rights.

So why is that? A sex shop isn't incompatible with people living there, the way a chemical plant might be...the only reason it is built into the code is because that's what people want. Pure and simple; for better or worse. And so sometimes laws will take the will of the people and override individual's rights, sometimes for arbitrary or indefensible reasons. I can't just open a sex shop wherever I want becuase the constitution affords me that right - the locals may simply not want it. In this case, the mayor is attempting to make the case in public opinion that they aren't wanted...for whatever reason. And public opinion may support him or may backfire.

Law is just one of the elements that is (in part) designed to keep things in check, to not allow the pendulum to swing too far. Law keeps this mayor from all the possible absurdities you describe. But law isn't infallibale, nor is the Constitution and they change over time to reflect the whims of citizens. Yes, sometimes the citizenry goes too far, but we're pretty good in the long run of keeping an even keel. And laws can be bad too - as were so many laws allowing discrimination for so long. If not for citizens, and more to the point eleceted officials, willing to stand up and change the law, we'd be stuck.

It is OK that places and cities be different, that some types are more welcome in some places and not others. And I can say that because over time, I trust in the overall system to both flex but also get to the right place. Time may prove one city wrong in their stance, but it will get corrected over time, either by law, or by the regular election of new officials, or simply by people having the freedom to pack up and leave that city.

Freedom in so many planes (religious, voting, economic, etc) is the "correction factor" that will fix anything out of bounds, including law. Law isn't that ultimate correction factor, because law itself can (and has been and will be) wrong itself at times. In short, I'm saying there's an appeal beyond law. The mayor is playing to that level.

I agree that the Mayor probably wouldn't be right under the law to deny the license request, only because the rules dictating such denials probably don't allow it. But he can mold the city in an image, even if it is only an image, and let the freedom of people decide if that's right or not.

Laws have their place and will keep him in check if he goes too far - but I believe the real slipperly slope is to imagine laws that would suggest what a PR campaign, an "issue", can or can't be for a candidate or elected official, and would dictate how they can/can't use their bully pulpit.

An interesting conversation all around. I started against the mayor tactics despite being in support of his sentiment. But the more I think about it, the more I think those "tactics" are at the core of our democracy, process and society.

[Tujague]

I agree that the Mayor probably wouldn't be right under the law to deny the license request, only because the rules dictating such denials probably don't allow it. But he can mold the city in an image, even if it is only an image, and let the freedom of people decide if that's right or not.

Well, yes. As I wrote, he cc'd the person whom I presume is the developer for the project in which CFA wishes to be a part. The mayor may not have the legal discretion to deny a permit to a business for their political views. But he can certainly signal to the developer that he and the city would frown upon CFA being invited to be a part of the development and that they should seek out or invite other businesses. And for a developer that has likely reaped financial benefits and tax breaks from the city, that should carry some weight. Well played.

[The Hersch]

Bless my soul, Waitman, well done. A little long.

You nail it here:

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about your essay is it ignores the idea that, once a principle like this is established, it becomes applicable in an infinite variety of circumstances. Suppose our hypothetical HRC –donating fast food establishment attempted to open a franchise in a very conservative community, where same sex marriage is viewed as capable of “destroying the community's way of life?” Your argument works just as well for them.

A problem of popular government is that it is popular. The great thing about the American arrangement is that, when faithfully followed, the popular aspects face rigorous restraints, such as the First Amendment. I began my contribution to this discussion, way up above, by confessing myself of two minds. The arguments I subsequently advanced were argued sincerely by the mind believing the beleaguered and embattled innocent may turn any weapon at hand into an instrument to defend the righteous and thwart the would-be oppressor, a conception that has a great deal of resonance with me in any context. But you're perfectly correct: the same weapon might be found just as readily to hand by the oppressor or the lunatic or the crackpot, figures appallingly thick on the ground of our political landscape.

Ultimately, I think Mayor Menino's letter strikes an appropriate note, rather like when Rick says to Major Strasser "Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."

Pax.

[Ericandblueboy]

Well, yes. As I wrote, he cc'd the person whom I presume is the developer for the project in which CFA wishes to be a part. The mayor may not have the legal discretion to deny a permit to a business for their political views. But he can certainly signal to the developer that he and the city would frown upon CFA being invited to be a part of the development and that they should seek out or invite other businesses. And for a developer that has likely reaped financial benefits and tax breaks from the city, that should carry some weight. Well played.

Telling a land owner who he should or shouldn't rent the property to is absurd. Intimidating an innocent landowner for political gain is equally absurd. Offering tax benefits as an inducement to not enter into a lease? Sounds like bribery. Tyranny of the majority this is. I'm sure the opposite happens in the bible belt and that's equally despicable.